Last night I was watching Nightline. The topic was the travesties that are occuring in the Congo. This is an area in such desperate need of help. Hundreds of thousands of people removed from their homes. Hundreds of children dying of starvation and disease. On average, 100 rapes a month commited by soldiers as well as other tribal sects. It took all I had in me to continue to watch and listen about these atrocities, because my life is so easy and I could have turned the channel and escaped the truth of their lives. And as I watched, I wondered is the reason we have not reached out to help these individuals escape their oppression from their government because they have no oil or other value to us? Just wondering aloud.
I hear you! :'( :'(
Quote from: minnie on June 27, 2008, 02:28:52 PM
And as I watched, I wondered is the reason we have not reached out to help these individuals escape their oppression from their government because they have no oil or other value to us? Just wondering aloud.
Before we once again overextend our resources here to once again be the saviour of some foreign country, I would much rather see those resources used for the betterment of our own country. Like, establishing permenent homes for the homeless? Making sure that every food bank has enough food that they never have to turn anyone away because of either too low stocks or lack thereof? Making sure that the road systems throughout the US are up-to-date? Making sure that our VA systems are equipped for the task of more than capably taking care of our returning and already home veterans? I agree, that nation does need help...but let some other country take up the slack on this one for once. We have got to quit being willing to bankrupt our nation in order to look like a hero elsewhere. I am not a racist and would never go for isolationist tactics by our government but enough is enough. We've already got billions and trillions that are owed us by foreign countries that will never pay us back in full. I think we need to start taking care of our own.
Sounds like you would have the war in Iraq end?
So what would we do? Invade another country to save the people from oppression, stay to get them up on their feet and running and have the people back here complaining like we do about the war in Iraq? We can't go in and destroy a government and not expect to stay and help establish another one. And we can't do this for every underprivileged country in the world. Maybe what we should do is send some of our industries over there, use their cheap labor to raise their living standard, then watch our own economy go to pot.
Compassion is good. We couldn't live without it. But the good old U S of A has just about had it with trying to save the oversea's underprivileged. Giving of our personal time and assets doesn't always get to it's destination. Does anyone have any idea just how much of the dollar you give actually gets to where it helps the people? How much of it goes to support the military oppression of that country? I hate the situation just as much as anyone else does, but the underprivileged masses have to help, too.
My point really is what makes the difference between why we went into Iraq and why we didn't go to other places where people are oppressed with far greater casualties like the Congo. The situtations in the Congo have been going on for some time, yet our government turns its head to it and invades Iraq. We didn't attack Iraq because of terrorism, because there has been no proof found to connect Sadam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. Nor was there evidence of "weapons of mass destruction". So my question was that if Congo had had oil or other value would we have gone there?
I agree with you Minnie, the situation is kind of like Iran and the atrocities of Pho Phott (spelling?) in Cambodia during the Carter administration. It was said that Iran was about human rights, yet all those people were murdered without quarter in Cambodia and hardley a notice by our government. Just another indication that big oil is in the pockets of our government. No, I do not think we need 'rescue' these people; we have the United Nations to do that.
By United Nations, I do not necessarily mean military action. The United Nations have been instrumental in third world countries to relieve suffering. Yes the United States contributes largely to this effort, but every country that we can influence to support themselves and govern themselves, the safer the world will be. Not a total answer, I know. There is no correct answer I am afraid.
If you mean that horrible head of the Khmer Rouge, that was Pol Pot. Hundreds of thousands were killed or forced to flee. Or maybe I have the wrong situation in mind.
Quote from: minnie on June 27, 2008, 05:22:57 PM
My point really is what makes the difference between why we went into Iraq and why we didn't go to other places where people are oppressed with far greater casualties like the Congo. The situtations in the Congo have been going on for some time, yet our government turns its head to it and invades Iraq. We didn't attack Iraq because of terrorism, because there has been no proof found to connect Sadam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. Nor was there evidence of "weapons of mass destruction". So my question was that if Congo had had oil or other value would we have gone there?
Would the answer to that be Bush? Finishing what daddy started?
Bear in mind that the people who defeated us in Viet Nam, invaded Cambodia and deposed Pol Pot some four years after they drove us out.
Thank you Diane; this came to mind after I watched just a snatch of The Killing Fields last night. I just couldn't stomach it. We were not defeated in Viet Nam; we left an unwinnable situation just like we now have in Iraq IMO.
Bingo Wilma, you get the stuffed chicken! I certainly do think the little man wanted to stride into Iraq and gather the flaming glory. He was convinced that it would be quick and easy, just like John McCain thought and is quoted as saying.
I, too, feel that we were not defeated in Viet Nam. Neither did we win. We left them to their own devices and isn't the whole country now Communist?
I have been waiting on you girls to blame George W. for Vietnam also.
Frank
So you got us, Frank. But he hasn't succeeded in getting us more oil either, has he? Maybe his real reason was that he thought he was protecting us from terrorism.
Wilma, the we don't need more oil we need more conservation.
From where I'm sitting, it appears that W sent us over there to keep the war there instead of here in our laps. I also suspect that we went there not so much for the oil but more for the tacticle advantage that having a presence over there would give us...Iraq is a great place, centrally located, for a staging area for any events that would come up. If we did indeed go over there for the oil, why is there no more oil flowing from that region than there is? If we only went over there for the oil, shouldn't we be in much better shape as far as our ability to get at fossil fuels? I agree, W has dropped the ball a number of times. However, I still have respect for the office of the Presidency...no matter what kind of smear was brought onto it in the past by those who viewed it as their own personal play pit.
I agree with you and agree with you that George W. is the President and deserves the respect that goes with that office. I know President Bush is a very religious person and I am equally sure that he agonizes over the situation in Iraq as much as we do.
I am equally sure that the oil had nothing to do with, what would we gain in regard to oil by going into Iraq.
Frank
Frank, I have given respect to the office all I am going to. The little man has dropped the ball over and over and it is time he sat on the bench. I personally do not think that he wanted to go in there for oil, but to gain the glory that his old man didn't collect during the Gulf war. Iraq is strategically located sure, and has some oil and it would be to the advantage of big oil for the US to have a strong foothold in the middle east. I do have to question the actual religious nature of a man who has been reported to say the things he has.
I voted for GW, and am deeply ashamed to say that I did. He has turned out to be the exact opposite of everything he seemed to be. I will give him one thing though; he is not a philanderer, I don't think his mama would let him.
Speaking of oil.. wasn't Clinton the one who started all this oil problem?
My question is why the Middle East? Why go in and rescue Kuwait from Iraq? Why go in and free the Iraqis from Hussein's tyrany? I don't buy the whole it was because of Weapons of mass destruction excuse, because it was proven that there was truly not enough information about the matter to justify an invasion. I feel that you are right SDM that maybe it was to finish the first President Bush's job.
What I want to know is why do we go in and attempt to free some from oppression and ignore other areas. The attrocities that are happening now and have been for a very long time in places like Sudan and the Congo seem to be far worse than those that the Iraqi people faced. Yet we ignore them.
Now, don't get me wrong. I don't believe that it is our job to rescue the world. I know we have our own problems and feel we must take care of our own first and foremost. Don't even get me started on that. I just am curious as to why and how we choose to help those that we do.
Minnie.. I think that if we all knew the corruption and the underhandedness of the people (ALL the people) in the government that is running our country, we would keel over from the shock of it all.
I love my country, but I do not trust my government...on any issue in any area.
Since the beginning of big government.. someone bigger ..somewhere...... be it the Kennedy's ..The Rockefeller's.. big corporations ..other country's and their mafias.. are pulling someone chain for power and personal gain.
It makes me sick to my bones.
You ask Why? ???
I don't imagine we will ever know. :'(